Losing the Feminist Voice? Debates on The Legal Recognition of Same Sex Partnerships in Canada

Abstract

Over the last decade, legal recognition of same-sex relationships in Canada has accelerated. By and large, same-sex cohabitants are now recognised in the same manner as opposite-sex cohabitants, and same-sex marriage was legalised in 2005. Without diminishing the struggle that lesbians and gay men have endured to secure this somewhat revolutionary legal recognition, this article troubles its narrative of progress. In particular, we investigate the terms on which recent legal struggles have advanced, as well as the ways in which resistance to the legal recognition has been expressed and dealt with. We argue that to the extent that feminist critiques of marriage, familial ideology, and the privatisation of economic responsibility are marginalised, conservative and heteronormative discourses on marriage and family are reinforced. Our case studies include two pivotal moments in the quest for legislative recognition of same-sex relationships: the Hearings of the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Bill C-23, The Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, in 2000 and the hearings on Same-Sex Marriage in 2003. We find that the debates operated within a narrow paradigm that bolstered many existing hierarchies and exacerbated conditions for those who are economically disadvantaged.

Marriage and the data on same-sex couples

“…Moreover, such effects may attach, disadvantageously, even to couples who have not formalised their relationship (Harding 2011, pp. 121-122, also Young andBoyd 2006).…”

Conjugality

“…To cohabit generally means "to live together as husband and wife, and is usually used [to describe the relationship] of a man and a woman who are not married to each other" (Parry 1993, 1). Parry's definition is exclusively heterosexual, but increasingly the parameters of cohabitation encompass same-sex couples, too (Young and Boyd 2006). When we talk about cohabitative or de facto relationships, we talk about marriage-like relationships that are not marriage.…”

“…Dissenters argue that marriage is an inappropriate vehicle for the regulation of gay and lesbian relationships and that alternatives (including domestic partnerships and civil unions legislation) should be explored. Such ideas have attracted far less attention and at times have virtually disappeared from public view (Ackelsberg 2010;Parsons 2008, 410n15;Young and Boyd 2006). In some ways, these debates echo the different feminist critiques of marriage outlined in Chapter 2: some see marriage as heterosexist but reformable; others see marriage as an institution whose primary purpose is to shore up heterosexist privilege.…”

Diversity in the European Union

“…31. Robson 1994;Stychin 2006;Young and Boyd 2006;Platero 2007. Raquel Platero notes that although Spain's activists and politicians represented samesex marriage as a gender-neutral contract, it has the potential for differential impacts on lesbians and gay men.…”